HC Deb 26 March 1913 vol 50 c1652
85. Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

asked the Postmaster-General why a carpenter in the London engineering district who contributed under Section 53 of the National Insurance Act has been refused payment for sickness by the Department; and, as this carpenter was a contributor to the late National Telephone Company's pension fund, and was promised by the Postmaster-General that he should not suffer in any respect by transfer, what action he now proposes to take?

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The officer concerned was insured under Section 53 of the National Insurance Act, instead of under the ordinary provisions of the Act, through a misapprehension. Steps are being taken by the Department to effect his insurance retrospectively in accordance with the ordinary provisions of the Act, and to pay to him, also by the Department, an amount equal to the sickness benefit to which he would have been entitled under the Act had his case been properly dealt with in the first instance. The question whether sick pay should be allowed by the Post Office to tradesmen in the engineering department, who were contributors to the late company's pension fund, was raised by a deputation I recently received, and is at present under consideration.